Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir charged with Darfur war crimes | World news | The Guardian Close This article is 7 years old The Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir , has been charged with war crimes over the conflict in Darfur, becoming the first sitting head of state issued with an arrest warrant by the international criminal court (ICC). The court, based in The Hague, upheld the request of the chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, to charge Bashir with war crimes and crimes against humanity. More than 200,000 people have died since 2003 in the country's western Darfur region. Judges dismissed the prosecution's most contentious charge of genocide. Prosecutors had alleged Bashir tried to wipe out three non-Arab ethnic groups. Within minutes of the announcement, hundreds of protesters took to the streets in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital. Mustafa Osman Ismail, an aide to Bashir, described the decision as "neo-colonialism ...

They do not want Sudan to become stable." The ICC spokeswoman, Laurence Blairon, said the indictment, drawn up by three judges, included five counts of crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture and rape. The two counts of war crimes were for directing attacks on the civilian population and pillaging. Blairon said Bashir was criminally responsible as the head of state and commander of the Sudanese armed forces for the offences during a five-year counter-insurgency campaign against three armed groups in Darfur. She said all states would be asked to execute the arrest warrant and if Sudan failed to cooperate the matter would be referred to the UN security council. Human rights groups hailed the ICC decision to pursue Bashir, who is accused of ordering mass murder, rape and torture in Darfur. "This sends a strong signal that the international community no longer tolerates impunity for grave violations of human rights committed by people in positions of power," said Tawanda Hondora, the deputy director of Amnesty International's Africa programme. Sudan does not recognise the ICC, and Bashir yesterday said the court could "eat" the arrest warrant, which he described as a western plot to hinder Sudan's development.

Despite his defiance, the court's decision will raise immediate questions over his political future and he will find it difficult to travel abroad without the risk of arrest. The case is by far the biggest and most controversial that the ICC, which started work as a permanent court in 2002, has taken on. Bashir, who is 65 and has held power for 20 years, joins the likes of the former Liberian president Charles Taylor and the late Yugoslavian leader Slobodan Milosevic, who were indicted by special international tribunals while still in office. Both were subsequently forced from power and put on trial in The Hague. Few independent observers doubt Bashir's large share of responsibility for the humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur. After the uprising in February 2003 by mainly non-Arab rebels, who complained of marginalisation and neglect, his government armed, trained and financed bands of Arab nomads to attack villages across Darfur, killing, raping and looting as they went. The army provided air and ground support.

Moreno-Ocampo says the strategy caused 35,000 violent deaths, and alleges that Bashir wanted to eliminate the Fur, Marsalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups, whom he deemed supportive of the rebels. "More than 30 witnesses will [testify] how he [Bashir] managed to control everything, and we have strong evidence of his intention," Moreno-Ocampo said yesterday. But some Sudan experts were not convinced by the genocide charge, which is normally extremely difficult to prove. Equally contentious was the decision to pursue Bashir while he still heads an unpredictable regime in an unstable country. The US, UK and France were in favour of the arrest warrant, and hope it may push Sudan's government towards reforms and ending the six-year conflict. But Arab states and the African Union had pressed for a postponement of the charges to allow Bashir a final chance to end the Darfur conflict while not under duress. Under the ICC statute, the United Nations can still pass a resolution to defer the prosecution for 12 months, but this seems unlikely given the stance of leading western powers.

Street protests against the ICC decision are expected in Khartoum, but the government has insisted there will be no impact on national policies. Some observers fear, however, that Bashir will crack down on opposition groups in the coming months if he feels his power is at stake, and that the 2005 peace deal to end the civil war in the south could also be in peril. The UN, aid agencies and western embassies have made emergency plans in case of violence against foreigners. Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir » The Hague Justice Portal Courts and tribunals Regions Topics Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir On 4 March 2009, Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir became the first sitting head of state to be indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) when Pre-Trial Chamber I issued a warrant for the arrest of the Sudanese President. The decision to issue the warrant of arrest follows an Application made by the Prosecutor of the ICC, Luis Moreno-Ocampo on 14 July 2008.

In its decision of 4 March 2009, the Pre-Trial Chamber indicted al-Bashir as an indirect (co-) perpetrator for five counts of crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture, rape) and two counts of war crimes (direct attacks on civilians and pillaging). Although the majority of the Chamber found that the Prosecutor had failed to provide reasonable grounds to prove the specific intent required for Genocide, they found sufficient evidence to believe that al-Bashir coordinated a five-year counter-insurgency campaign, a “core component” of which was the unlawful and intentional direct attack of the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa civilian population. On 12 July 2010 Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a second warrant of arrest against Al- Bashir, considering that there are reasonable grounds to believe he is responsible for three counts of genocide committed against the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups, that include: genocide by killing, genocide by causing serious bodily or mental harm and genocide by deliberately inflicting on each target group conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction.

This second arrest warrant does not replace or revoke in any respect the first warrant of arrest issued against Al-Bashir on 4 March 2009, which remains in effect. The situation in Darfur was originally referred to the Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council on 31 March 2005, in Resolution 1593. Two other warrants of arrest in connection with the Darfur conflict were issued on 27 April 2007 for current Sudanese Minister, Ahmad Muhammad Harun and former Janjaweed militia leader, Ali Muhammad Al Abd-Al-Rahman (“Ali Kushayb”). On 1 December, 2010, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) requested the Central African Republic to take all necessary measures to arrest Omar Al Bashir and transfer him to the Court, in the event and at the moment that he arrives in the country’s territory. On 8 December 2010 the Office of the Prosecutor submitted a notification to the Chamber informing of a possible travel of President Al-Bashir to the Republic of Senegal and to the Republic of Zambia.

A similar notification was submitted to the Republic of Chad on 10 January 2011. Sudan: ICC Warrant for Al-Bashir on Genocide | Human Rights Watch July 13, 2010 7:45AM EDT Sudan: ICC Warrant for Al-Bashir on Genocide Languages Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir waves to supporters at the NCP Headquarters in Khartoum on April 26, 2010. © 2010 رويترز (New York) - The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant on July 12, 2010, for President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan for genocide committed in Darfur. An earlier arrest warrant for al-Bashir was issued in March 2009 by the ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. This is the first time the ICC has issued an arrest warrant for the crime of genocide.

The warrant is for al-Bashir's alleged role as an indirect perpetrator or indirect co-perpetrator of genocide in Darfur through killing, causing bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring physical destruction. "President al-Bashir's stonewalling on the initial ICC warrant against him appears only more outrageous now that he's also being sought for genocide," said Elise Keppler, senior counsel with the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. "Security Council members and other concerned governments should actively press Sudan to stop its blatant obstruction of the ICC and to see to it that al-Bashir appears at the court." The ICC has jurisdiction over international crimes committed in Darfur, even though Sudan is not a party to the court, under Security Council Resolution 1593, which referred Darfur to the ICC and obligates Sudan to cooperate with the ICC. The ICC pre-trial chamber declined to include genocide charges when it issued the first warrant for al-Bashir. The prosecutor's office appealed the decision on the basis that the chamber had used an inappropriate standard of proof in declining to include the genocide charges.

In a March 2010 ruling, the appeals chamber agreed and instructed the pre-trial chamber to reassess genocide charges on the basis that genocide could be one reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the material submitted, while not necessarily the only reasonable conclusion. On July 12, the pre-trial chamber issued a ruling that resulted in the second warrant on genocide charges. Human Rights Watch has found in its research on Darfur that the highest levels of the Sudanese leadership, including al-Bashir, are responsible for creating and coordinating the government's counterinsurgency policy in Darfur, which deliberately and systematically targeted civilians in violation of international law. Human Rights Watch has described the crimes in Darfur as "ethnic cleansing," war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Human Rights Watch has not taken a position on whether the crimes constitute genocide due to insufficient information in its research on whether the actions were carried out with the "intent to destroy in whole or in part an ethnic group," an element of the crime of genocide.

Region / Country India’s Failure to End Killings in Police Custody December 6, 2016 Al Bashir's warrant of arrest, ICC press conference, March 2009 - ICC Spokesperson - YouTube Al Bashir's warrant of arrest, ICC press conference, March 2009 - ICC Spokesperson Want to watch this again later? Sign in to add this video to a playlist. Need to report the video? Sign in to report inappropriate content. The interactive transcript could not be loaded. Loading... Rating is available when the video has been rented. This feature is not available right now. Please try again later. Uploaded on Oct 14, 2009 Statement of Laurence Blairon, ICC Spokesperson, during the press conference held on 4 March 2009 on the warrant of arrest for Al-Bashir. On 4 March 2009, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for the arrest of Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, President of Sudan, for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

He is suspected of being criminally responsible, as an indirect (co-)perpetrator, for intentionally directing attacks against an important part of the civilian population of Darfur, Sudan. These attacks involved murder, extermination, rape, torture, forcible transfer of a large numbers of civilians, and pillaging of property. This is the first warrant of arrest ever issued for a sitting Head of State by the ICC. The ICC organised a press conference announcing the decision of the judges. The press conference was hosted by the Registrar, Silvana Arbia, and the ICC Spokesperson, Laurence Blairon. The Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, made a short statement. For more information on the warrant of arrest: BBC NEWS | Africa | Warrant issued for Sudan's leader Warrant issued for Sudan's leader Omar al-Bashir says the charges reflect Western hostility towards Sudan The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Sudan's president on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. But the ICC in The Hague stopped short of accusing Omar al-Bashir of genocide. He denies the charges and has dismissed any ruling by the court as worthless.

Thousands of protesters took to the streets of the capital, Khartoum, after the announcement, amid fears of unrest. The UN estimates 300,000 people have died in Darfur's six-year conflict. Millions more have been displaced. Court spokeswoman Laurence Blairon announced the ruling by a panel of judges on the charges presented by ICC prosecutors. She said Mr Bashir was suspected of being criminally responsible for "intentionally directing attacks against an important part of the civilian population of Darfur, Sudan, murdering, exterminating, raping, torturing and forcibly transferring large numbers of civilians and pillaging their property". This decision is exactly what we have been expecting from the court, which was created to target Sudan Mustafa Othman Ismail World reaction: Bashir warrant Ms Blairon said the violence in Darfur was the result of a common plan organised at the highest level of the Sudanese government, but there was no evidence of genocide. The court would transmit a request for Mr Bashir's arrest and surrender as soon as possible to the Sudanese government, she added. It is the first warrant issued by The Hague-based UN court against a sitting head of state.

ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo made the request for the warrant in July 2008. 'Toothless' Reacting to the charges, an aide to Mr Bashir said the ICC judges were biased. "This decision is exactly what we have been expecting from the court, which was created to target Sudan and to be part of the new mechanism of neo-colonialism," Mustafa Othman Ismail told Sudanese TV. ICC's BASHIR CHARGE SHEET ICC indictment Speaking on Tuesday ahead of the announcement, Mr Bashir said the Hague tribunal could "eat" the arrest warrant. He said it would "not be worth the ink it is written on" and then danced for thousands of cheering supporters who burned an effigy of the ICC chief prosecutor. Sudan expert Alex de Waal told the BBC the indictment is "pretty toothless" as the ICC does not have a police force. In Khartoum thousands of government supporters gathered, chanting "We love you President Bashir". Security was increased at many embassies, and some Westerners stayed home amid fears of retaliation. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged Sudan to "co-operate fully" with all United Nations entities.

He said the UN would "continue to conduct its vital peacekeeping, humanitarian, human rights and development operations and activities in Sudan". African and Arab countries have warned that the court's action will only increase tension in Sudan. Egypt said it was "greatly disturbed" by the ICC's decision and called for a meeting of the UN Security Council to defer implementation of the warrant. Sudan's foreign ministry said President Bashir would ignore it and attend an Arab summit scheduled later this month in Qatar. Aid workers withdrawn Russia called the warrant a "dangerous precedent". Darfur's Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) rebel group hailed the decision as a "victory for international law" and called on Mr Bashir to turn himself in. In pictures: Art of war The US administration also welcomed it, as did international human-rights groups. "With this arrest warrant, the International Criminal Court has made Omar al-Bashir a wanted man," said Richard Dicker of the New York-based group Human Rights Watch. Amnesty International called on any country visited by President Bashir to detain him. Sudan expelled at least six foreign aid agencies hours after the arrest warrant was issued, aid officials said. No reasons were given for the move.

Before the announcement, the charity Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) said it had withdrawn foreign staff from Darfur. The war crimes court has already issued two arrest warrants - in 2007 - for Sudanese Humanitarian Affairs Minister Ahmed Haroun and the Janjaweed militia leader Ali Abdul Rahman. Sudan has refused to hand them over. Bookmark with: Bashir Rejects ICC Arrest Warrant: What Happens Next? | The Huffington Post Bashir Rejects ICC Arrest Warrant: What Happens Next? 04/05/2009 05:12 am ET | Updated May 25, 2011 Catherine Lyons The Huffington Post On March 4, the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for the arrest of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, accusing him of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Darfur region, reported Africa News. Bashir strongly rejected the warrant, calling the move a step toward colonizing his country during a rally where thousands gathered to show their support for the president, said Al Jazeera English. Even the African Union, which decided last month to back Bashir, has called on the United Nations to halt the warrant, Africaasia reports .

The move would "give a chance for peace in Sudan," said the chairman of the bloc's Peace and Security Council, Bruno Zidouemba, after an emergency meeting in the Ethiopian capital. But what happens now? Will Bashir be arrested, and if not, then what will happen to Sudan, especially now that 10 foreign aid groups have had their licenses revoked? The BBC reports that the stakes could not be higher in Sudan and especially Darfur, and the future is uncertain. On the one hand supporters of the global court will be hoping that the arrest warrant will be enough to persuade Sudan's politicians to hand the country's leader over. Over the last few months rumours that a coup is on the cards have been circulating around Khartoum. But insiders say that senior members of the National Congress Party have decided to stick with President Bashir - at least for the time being. BBC also reports that many fear that if Bashir stays in office, the genocide in Darfur could escalate. Violence in the region has increased in the past few weeks, despite an agreement between the government and Justice and Equality Movement. Now, the JEM has promised to work with the ICC.

There is a fear among some analysts that the arrest warrant for President Bashir could possibly derail the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed in 2005 and plunge South Sudan back into bloody conflict. The Economist argues that the affects of a trial at the Hague for Bashir could be huge and widespread. Other warrants were already out for Mr Bashir's "humanitarian affairs" minister and a leader of the government-backed Arab janjaweed militias, and more are likely. Yet the upheavals that will follow Mr Bashir's indictment could yet damage the court. Some African members had previously threatened to give up on the ICC if the Bashir case went ahead. The aftershocks of the effort to bring Mr Bashir to trial will also be felt far beyond The Hague. The joint UN-AU peacekeeping operation in Darfur, called UNAMID and now (counting police and civilians) some 15,000 strong, had already come under attack from local rebels; related arrest warrants have been requested against three rebel commanders. Reprisals against UNAMID could now follow from government-backed forces.

More: ICC issues arrest warrant for al-Bashir » The Hague Justice Portal Archive Commentaries International Justice News & publications ICC issues arrest warrant for al-Bashir 04 Mar 2009 Judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) have issued a warrant for the arrest of Sudanese President, Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir. On 4 March 2009, three judges in Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for the arrest of Sudanese President, Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir for war crimes and crimes against humanity. President al-Bashir becomes the first sitting head of state to be indicted by the ICC. Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the ICC chief prosecutor, presented evidence to the ICC in July 2008, charging Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir with ten counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes for acts perpetrated in Darfur from March 2003. After around eight months of consideration, the ICC Pre-trial Chamber has determined that there is sufficient evidence for an arrest warrant to be issued against the Sudanese President.

However, the three-judge panel did not grant the accusation of genocide, indicating that there was insufficient evidence of the “specific intent” required under the 1948 Genocide Convention. No immunity According to the Pre-trial Chamber, Omar Al Bashir’s official capacity as a sitting Head of State “does not exclude his criminal responsibility, nor does it grant him immunity against prosecution” before the ICC. Additionally, the Judges stressed that if additional evidence was gathered by the Prosecution, it would still have the possibility to request an amendment to the warrant of arrest in order to include the crime of genocide. It is alleged that Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir masterminded and implemented a plan to destroy “in whole or in part” the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups in Darfur. The prosecution further asserts that Sudanese armed forces acted alongside Janjaweed militias under the orders of Omar al-Bashir in the systematic razing of villages, the killing and rape of civilians and the subjection of conditions designed to bring about their destruction.

The Chamber found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that this was a common plan agreed upon at the highest levels of the Government of Sudan, within which President al-Bashir exercised full control of all state apparatus. The three-judge panel has indicted President al-Bashir as an indirect co-perpetrator or as an indirect perpetrator in the alternative, for five counts of crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture, rape) and two counts of war crimes (direct attacks on civilians and pillaging). Darfur The decision to grant an arrest warrant for Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir follows months of political and academic debate as to whether the prosecutor should have brought a case against the President, a sitting head of state. Opponents argue that an indictment against al-Bashir would spark further violence in Darfur and jeopardise the peace process in Sudan, especially given the crucial months ahead for the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed in 2005 ending Sudan’s 20-year civil war in the country’s south. In addition to Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, the ICC had already issued two other warrants of arrest in connection with the Darfur conflict .

Current Sudanese Minister of Humanitarian Affairs, Ahmad Muhammad Harun and former Janjaweed leader, Ali Muhammad Al Abd-Al-Rahman (“Ali Kushayb”), are both sought by the Court following warrants issued on 27 April 2007. The government of Sudan has refused to carry out the warrant of arrest of Harun. Reports from Sudan in 2008 suggested that Ali Kushayb had been detained – an act criticized as an attempt by al-Bashir to stave off the ICC’s case against him. Prior to President Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, Slobodan Milošević and former Liberian President, Charles Taylor were the only two sitting heads of state to have been indicted for war crimes while still in office. Darfur: International Criminal Court’s Decision on Bashir Arrest Warrant | Human Rights Watch February 3, 2010 12:34PM EST Darfur: International Criminal Court’s Decision on Bashir Arrest Warrant Languages Sudan's President Omar Hassan al-Bashir speaks during the U.N. Conference on Financing for Development in Doha November 29, 2008.

© 2008 Reuters On March 4, 2009, the pre-trial chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant of arrest for President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan on charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes. The warrant raises a number of important issues: 1. Can the court's prosecutor bring charges against a head of state? Are presidents, prime ministers, and other heads of state and government not immune from prosecution? The Rome Statute, which established the ICC, applies to everyone regardless of their official capacity. Any immunities that the person may have in his or her own country based on official position do not prevent the ICC from bringing charges. Article 27 of the Rome Statute states explicitly that heads of state are not immune from prosecution. 2. What requirements does the prosecutor have to meet to obtain an arrest warrant? The pre-trial chamber issues a warrant if it determines that the summary of evidence that the prosecutor presented establishes "reasonable grounds to believe" that the person named has committed a crime within the court's jurisdiction. A suspect who is arrested or surrenders to the court has an opportunity to object to the charges and to challenge the evidence in a "confirmation of charges" hearing.

At that point, the pre-trial chamber must decide whether there is enough evidence to establish "substantial grounds to believe" that the person committed each of the crimes charged in order to move forward to trial. 3. Since the court did not confirm genocide charges against al-Bashir, does that mean that it has ruled that there was no genocide in Darfur? The pre-trial chamber ruled only on whether the evidence put forward by the prosecutor established that there are "reasonable grounds to believe" that al-Bashir committed the crime of genocide under the Rome Statute, not whether genocide occurred. Genocide charges are difficult to prove. The prosecutor must show that certain acts (namely killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of a group, deliberately inflicting conditions meant to destroy the group in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, or forcibly transferring children from their community) were committed with the specific intent "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such" on the basis of their identity.

While there is extensive evidence of atrocities in Darfur, it is more difficult to prove specific "genocidal intent." The prosecutor may, however, request the pre-trial chamber to amend the warrant later on if it finds additional evidence to support charges of genocide. In any case, al-Bashir faces charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes, extremely serious international offenses, for the massive killings, rapes, and other atrocities in Darfur. The crimes against humanity charges against al-Bashir include murder, extermination, rape, torture, and forcible transfer of a population, committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilians. The war crimes allegations include intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population and pillaging. War crimes and crimes against humanity were the basis of prosecutions for Nazi crimes in Nuremberg and for ethnic cleansing in the Balkans at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. 4. Now that the arrest warrant for President al-Bashir has been issued, who can make the arrest? Because the ICC has no police force of its own, it depends on national authorities to make arrests on its behalf. The court may ask any country where the suspect may be found to arrest and surrender him.

States parties to the Rome Statute are generally obligated to comply. However, if there are questions about the obligation to comply or concerns about conflicts with other legal obligations, the state can consult with the court to resolve the issue. The United Nations (UN) Security Council resolution that referred the situation in Darfur to the ICC prosecutor in 2005 requires the government of Sudan and all parties to the conflict to cooperate fully with the court and to provide it with necessary assistance. Sudan, though not a party to the ICC, is obligated because of the resolution to make arrests at the court's request. The same resolution urges other states that are not parties to the Rome Statute to cooperate, but they are not required to do so. 5. Can UN peacekeeping forces in Sudan make an arrest? The mandates for the UN peacekeeping forces in Sudan do not include arrest of ICC suspects. 6. If al-Bashir travels abroad, are other countries obligated to arrest him? The Rome Statute generally obligates all states parties who have received a request for an arrest to comply with that request. Therefore, states parties asked to execute the warrant have an obligation to make an arrest.

Because this area of law is untested, the court's ruling is the only authoritative decision on this issue. If states asked to make the arrests have concerns about conflicting obligations under international law, the appropriate forum to raise these issues is before the ICC. Non-states parties are not obligated to make an arrest at the request of the ICC under the Statute. However, the Security Council resolution that referred the situation in Sudan to the ICC prosecutor urges all states to cooperate fully with the court. 7. If President al-Bashir attends the Arab Summit in Qatar later this month as he announced that he will do, does Qatar have to arrest him? Although Qatar is not a party to the Rome Statute, the Security Council resolution that referred the situation in Darfur to the ICC prosecutor urges non-parties to the statute to cooperate fully with the court. Qatar could decide to arrest al-Bashir if it receives a warrant from the court, but there is no requirement that it do so. 8. Can diplomats and others still have meetings with al-Bashir? The issuance of an arrest warrant does not legally prevent diplomats from holding meetings with al-Bashir. How to interact with him will be a matter of policy for governments to decide. 9.

Will the issuance of the warrant affect the peace process in Darfur? Should the court have taken these considerations into account? It is difficult to predict the effect of the warrant on political developments in Sudan, but the peace process in Darfur has long been stalled for reasons wholly unrelated to the ICC. Rather, the parties do not appear committed to finding a solution through the peace talks. The historical record from other conflicts shows that warrants for arrest of leaders can actually strengthen peace efforts by stigmatizing and marginalizing these leaders. The arrest warrants against Charles Taylor of Liberia and Radovan Karadzic in Bosnia and Herzegovina removed them from peace processes and ultimately facilitated reaching agreement. In addition, many credit the ICC warrants against the leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda for their willingness to participate in peace talks for the first time in years. In any case, the court is not mandated to take the issue into account in decisions to issue arrest warrants. The court is responsible for bringing to justice those most responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. It must act independently and apolitically to fulfill its mandate and is not empowered to make decisions about peace and security. 10.

What will the effect of the warrant be on humanitarian agencies and peacekeepers on the ground? Human Rights Watch has long been concerned about the Sudanese government's failure to ensure access by humanitarian agencies and peacekeepers to people in need in Darfur, and those concerns remain. International law requires the government to ensure the full, safe, and unhindered access of relief personnel to all those in need in Darfur as well as the delivery of humanitarian assistance, in particular to internally displaced persons and refugees. In addition, international law prohibits attacks against humanitarian or peacekeeping missions and defines such attacks as war crimes. The warrant does not change Khartoum's obligation to abide by international law. Should the government violate international law by deliberately attacking or obstructing humanitarian personnel or peacekeepers, the UN Security Council should respond by taking appropriate measures, including sanctions. 11. Will the warrant slow deployment of UNAMID peacekeepers? The government of Sudan is required-under UN Security Council Resolution 1769-to facilitate the full deployment of the UNAMID force. This requirement is not in any way affected by the issuance of arrest warrants. The government has continually obstructed and undermined UNAMID from the start.

It has eased some restrictions on deployment in recent months, but it is still far from fulfilling its obligations. The Security Council and concerned governments should maintain pressure on Sudan to allow full deployment of UNAMID. This might include widening the arms embargo and imposing targeted sanctions (such as travel bans and banking restrictions) on top Sudanese officials. 12. What effect does the warrant have on the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which ended the civil war between north and south Sudan? The warrant has no impact on the obligations of either the governing National Congress Party or the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement under the CPA, which ended more than two decades of civil war. Both parties have economic and political interests in seeing the power and wealth-sharing components of the CPA put into effect. In addition, since the prosecutor's July 2008 announcement that he was seeking an arrest for President al-Bashir , both have indicated that they are committed to implementing the agreement and to avoiding a return to conflict. In July, the two sides made significant headway in resolving the Abyei dispute, which caused clashes in May 2008, and in October, the parties passed a number of laws related to the CPA. 13.

How will this affect the upcoming elections in Sudan? Under the CPA, which ended the 20-year civil war between the north and south, elections are to be held in 2009. Both parties have confirmed their commitment to hold these elections. Although significant challenges must be addressed if the elections are to be free and fair, these are largely unrelated to the ICC. Outstanding challenges include the need for urgent legislative reform, logistical and security preparations, and wider measures to protect freedom of expression and access for the media. The international community has a role to play in maintaining pressure to ensure that the ruling party takes all necessary steps to meet its national and international obligations. 14. Can al-Bashir be a candidate in the elections even though there is an ICC warrant for his arrest? While international law places obligations on states to arrest persons wanted by the ICC, it does not prohibit an individual sought for crimes by the ICC from running for office. Whether he is eligible to run for president in the upcoming elections is determined by national laws in Sudan. 15. What has Human Rights Watch found regarding al-Bashir's role in crimes in Darfur?

As documented in Human Rights Watch's December 2005 report, " Entrenching Impunity: Government Responsibility for International Crimes in Darfur ," Human Rights Watch found that the highest levels of the Sudanese leadership, including al-Bashir, were responsible for creating and coordinating the government's counterinsurgency policy, which deliberately and systematically targeted civilians in Darfur in violation of international law. Al-Bashir, as commander-in-chief of the Sudanese Armed Forces, played a pivotal leadership role in the military campaign in Darfur. His public statements were precursors to military operations and to peaks in abuses by Sudanese security forces. There are indications that they echoed the private directives given to civilian administration and military and security services. For instance, on December 30, 2003, al-Bashir announced that: "Our top priority will be the annihilation of the rebellion and any outlaw who carries arms." A few days later, in January 2004, the Sudanese security forces began an offensive that used systematic force in violation of international humanitarian law to drive hundreds of thousands of people from rural areas in Darfur.

The methodological use of aerial support to target civilians in the military campaign, despite protests from air force officers, also appears to reflect the involvement of high-level officials in Khartoum. Human Rights Watch concluded that beginning in May 2002, even before the more devastating phases of the conflict, al-Bashir was very likely aware of abuses committed by the security forces in Darfur. By mid-2004, reports of tens of thousands of displaced people and information from dozens of police complaints, press accounts, and reports by numerous organizations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, made it clear that massive abuses were taking place in Darfur. Apart from this specific information, the government's previous use of ethnic militias in the southern Sudan conflict provided ample warning that such forces invariably targeted civilians and committed other war crimes. There is no evidence that al-Bashir or other senior government officials took serious measures to prevent or to stop the abuses. The armed forces and government-backed militia called "Janjaweed" continued to carry out crimes for months after the reports were widely known.

Even after al-Bashir established a national inquiry into the crimes (which reported to him personally), attacks in December 2004 displayed all the characteristics of previous offenses, including military coordination of the Janjaweed, aerial bombardment of villages, and mass forced displacement of civilians. 16. Why are all the ICC prosecutor's cases in Africa? Is the West trying to impose its own justice on Africa? The ICC, established to bring accountability for the world's most serious crimes, currently has situations in four countries under active investigation-Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, and the Darfur region of Sudan. The prosecutor's office, on its own initiative, is also looking into possible investigations in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Georgia. The court's exclusive focus on Africa at present has led to criticism among some African states and ICC observers that the continent is the court's main target.

However, a number of objective factors undermine such accusations, including: Three of the four ICC country situations under investigation were referred by the countries involved, while the fourth situation, Darfur, was referred to the court by the UN Security Council; The ICC can only investigate crimes committed after July 1, 2002, which means that many situations are excluded from the court's jurisdiction; and In order to warrant ICC intervention, crimes committed after July 1, 2002, must still be sufficiently grave (in terms of the number of victims, for example), and the national authorities must be shown to be either unable or unwilling to address them. In fact, 22 African countries were among the founding ratifiers of the Rome Statute. Of the 108 states parties to the ICC, 30 are countries in Africa. Each has voluntarily demonstrated its commitment to the institution. The ICC, in turn, is working to bring justice to the countless African victims who have suffered unspeakable crimes. A number of countries, including the United States, do not automatically come under the ICC's jurisdiction because they have not become parties to the Rome Statute.

It is also possible for a country that is not a party to the Rome Statute to voluntarily submit crimes on its territory to the ICC's jurisdiction. 17. Why is it important to prosecute grave crimes in violation of international law? Justice for the most serious crimes-including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes-is mandated by international law. But justice is also crucial to bring redress to victims and to build respect for the rule of law, which contribute to establishing a durable peace, especially in societies that have been devastated by conflict. 18. Why is the ICC prosecutor investigating President al-Bashir but not investigating crimes against civilians by Israeli and Palestinian forces in Gaza?

The ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide committed after July 1, 2002, only if at least one of the following threshold conditions is met: The crimes occurred in the territory of a state that is a party to the Rome Statute; The person accused of the crimes is a citizen of a country that is a party to the Rome Statute; A state that is not a party to the Rome Statute accepts the ICC's jurisdiction for the crime in question by making a declaration and lodging it with the ICC registrar; or The UN Security Council refers the situation to the ICC prosecutor. Because Israel is not a state party to the Rome Statute, for the ICC to begin an investigation either the United Nations Security Council would have to refer the situation to the ICC prosecutor (as it did for Darfur) or the state where the crimes occurred (or the state whose citizens are accused of committing the crimes) would have to accept the court's jurisdiction. The Palestinian Authority has agreed to accept the court's jurisdiction for crimes committed in Gaza. The prosecutor is now considering whether the Palestinian Authority is a state under international law and thus able to accept jurisdiction for crimes committed in Gaza.

Human Rights Watch has called for an impartial international investigation into violations of the laws of war by all sides in Gaza as a first step to ensuring accountability for crimes allegedly committed there. 19. Is there not a double standard when it comes to international justice, with international prosecutions only being pursued in states with less political clout? Perpetrators of serious violations of international law should be held to account regardless of their nationality. Nevertheless, the application of international justice has been uneven. States, often acting through the UN Security Council, have decided when-or when not-to establish international criminal tribunals and what their mandates will be. Political considerations have been a factor, and the institutions created have not covered all the grave crimes that have been committed. Despite this selectivity, the ad hoc tribunals have contributed to establishing accountability at least with respect to conflicts within their mandate. It is crucial to extend this accountability for the worst crimes wherever they occur. The ICC, established by a multi-party treaty rather than a Security Council resolution, accomplishes this to some extent, but there are limits to its jurisdiction. It is important for more states to ratify the treaty in order to extend its jurisdictional reach.

Region / Country India’s Failure to End Killings in Police Custody December 6, 2016 Two views on [Arrest warrant for President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan] - Google Groups Two views on [Arrest warrant for President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan] Showing 1-1 of 1 messages The New York Times, March 3, 2009 Op-Ed Contributor Will Africa Let Sudan Off the Hook? By DESMOND TUTU Cape Town THE expected issuance of an arrest warrant for President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan by the International Criminal Court tomorrow presents a stark choice for African leaders — are they on the side of justice or on the side of injustice? Are they on the side of the victim or the oppressor? The choice is clear but the answer so far from many African leaders has been shameful. Because the victims in Sudan are African, African leaders should be the staunchest supporters of efforts to see perpetrators brought to account. Yet rather than stand by those who have suffered in Darfur, African leaders have so far rallied behind the man responsible for turning that corner of Africa into a graveyard.

In response to news last July that Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the court’s chief prosecutor, was seeking an arrest warrant for President Bashir for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, the African Union issued a communiqué to the United Nations Security Council asking it to suspend the court’s proceedings. Rather than condemn the genocide in Darfur, the organization chose to underscore its concern that African leaders are being unfairly singled out and to support President Bashir’s effort to delay court proceedings. More recently, the Group of 77, an influential organization at the United Nations consisting of 130 developing states and including nearly every African country, gave Sudan its chairmanship. The victory came after African members endorsed Sudan’s candidacy in spite of the imminent criminal charges against its president. I regret that the charges against President Bashir are being used to stir up the sentiment that the justice system — and in particular, the international court — is biased against Africa. Justice is in the interest of victims, and the victims of these crimes are African. To imply that the prosecution is a plot by the West is demeaning to Africans and understates the commitment to justice we have seen across the continent.

It’s worth remembering that more than 20 African countries were among the founders of the International Criminal Court, and of the 108 nations that joined the court, 30 are in Africa. That the court’s four active investigations are all in Africa is not because of prosecutorial prejudice — it is because three of the countries involved (Central African Republic, Congo and Uganda) themselves requested that the prosecutor intervene. Only the Darfur case was referred to the prosecutor by the Security Council. The prosecutor on his own initiative is considering investigations in Afghanistan, Colombia and Georgia. African leaders argue that the court’s action will impede efforts to promote peace in Darfur. However, there can be no real peace and security until justice is enjoyed by the inhabitants of the land. There is no peace precisely because there has been no justice. As painful and inconvenient as justice may be, we have seen that the alternative — allowing accountability to fall by the wayside — is worse. The issuance of an arrest warrant for President Bashir would be an extraordinary moment for the people of Sudan — and for those around the world who have come to doubt that powerful people and governments can be called to account for inhumane acts.

African leaders should support this historic occasion, not work to subvert it. Desmond Tutu, the former Anglican archbishop of Cape Town, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984. The New York Times, March 3, 2009 Op-Ed Contributor By FRANKLIN GRAHAM Nyala, Sudan IN 2001 a hospital operated by my relief organization in the southern Sudanese town of Lui was bombed nine times by forces of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir. Two years later, I had what would be my first of three meetings with Mr. Bashir, now one of the most wanted men on the planet. When I confronted him about these attacks he was fully aware of them. After our meeting they stopped. Mr. Bashir is rightly accused of great cruelty and destruction. But I have been able to deal with him. It now looks as if the International Criminal Court will finally bring Mr. Bashir to his knees. Tomorrow the court is expected to announce its decision to issue an arrest warrant for the president, the first time it has sought the detention of a sitting head of state. Yet arresting Mr.

Bashir now will likely only create further chaos in Sudan, which in recent years has been convulsed by separate conflicts in the south and in the Darfur region in the west. The court may have good intentions. After all, any civilized person would condemn Mr. Bashir for his behavior. I have done so to his face. In 16 years of relief work in Sudan, I have witnessed much of the violence that his government has inflicted. An estimated 300,000 people in Darfur have died and 2.5 million people have fled their homes in the wake of fighting among rebels, government forces and their allied Janjaweed militias. Nor does the destruction stop there: Our organization has identified nearly 500 churches that were destroyed by Mr. Bashir’s forces. But arresting Mr. Bashir now threatens to undo the progress his country has made. In 2005, Sudan’s government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement signed an accord ending the civil war in the south. The agreement paved the way for elections in the south later this year, as well as for a referendum on southern independence scheduled for 2011.

The accord has brought benefits to Sudan, but it isn’t clear that they will last. Mr. Bashir, who fought members of his own party to approve the deal, is critical to the peace process. I want to see justice served, but my desire for peace in Sudan is stronger. Mr. Bashir, accused of genocide and crimes against humanity, is hardly an ideal peacemaker. But given all the warring factions in Sudan, there is no guarantee that his replacement would be better. For all his faults, Mr. Bashir has demonstrated that he is able to cooperate. On several occasions he has complied with my requests. When a hospital we operated in eastern Sudan was seized by government forces, Mr. Bashir granted us limited access. Mr. Bashir also made television time available for us to broadcast a Christian program at Christmas and Easter. More important, Mr. Bashir helped make the peace agreement a reality. Now, his arrest could threaten the south’s elections and referendum, and hurl the country back into civil war. His removal could also spur retaliation by Bashir loyalists and other forces against civilians, United Nations peacekeepers or international aid workers. We do have other options.

The statute that established the court allows for the United Nations Security Council to postpone the court’s proceedings for 12 months, giving Sudan the time it will need to achieve peace. In that period President Bashir should do everything he can to ensure that the provisions of the agreement go fully into effect, and to cooperate with the United Nations and the United States to bring about political stability in Darfur. President Obama can also do his part. He should move quickly to appoint a special envoy to Sudan, as he has wisely done in other hot spots of the world. Economic problems at home should not distract America’s president from exerting leadership to avert a crisis that threatens the future of Africa’s largest nation. The removal of Mr. Bashir will make it harder to negotiate an end to the crisis in Sudan. Ultimately, justice will be served by a power higher than the International Criminal Court. In the meantime, justice without peace would be a hollow victory. Franklin Graham is the president and chief executive of Samaritan’s Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. (Assoc Prof of African History & World History) Dept of History

Question: In March 2009, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the President of which African country?
Answer: SUDAN